Yea, I’m sure those thousands of Iraqi civilians, many of them children, who died [collateral damage in Bushspeak] felt really grateful just before the bombs hit them, both for Bush invading their country, and for bombing them into oblivion.
Oh, and I forgot to ask why murdering American civilians is a **‘much bigger outrage’ ** than murdering over 3 times as many Iraqi civilians? Is one live American worth more, in your eyes, than three live Iraqis?
Go peddle your Bushit elsewhere – in case you haven’t noticed, no one’s buying it here.
Greed, ideology, delusions of grandeur, a bevy of lies and fearmogering, that’s what got you into Iraq.
Bucketfuls of blood – mostly the Iraqi’s, but plenty of yours as well – is what’s going to get you out.
Funny and sad. You keep yelling at me and I don’t even disagree with you. I’m only saying that there is a bigger picture, where “Greed, ideology, delusions of grandeur, a bevy of lies and fearmogering” pretty much covers all the goings on in the whole world. If Bush lied, then everybody lied: Clinton, Gore, Chiraq, Shroeder, Blix, Annan, Putin and the whole Chinese politburo. If liberation of Iraq was a mistake, then 12 years of sanctions were a mistake, then liberation of Kuwait was a mistake…
By my count, the elaboration of how, when and where GWB and co. lied has been made no less than 6 times on this board, without serious rebuttal.
No doubt New Iskander has encountered the occasion at least once.
However, I have never seen any argument that the good doctor Blix or many other of the names mentioned were equally wedded to dishonesty. Indeed Dr. Blix stands as a titan of honesty, in amongst pygmies.
And what vile slurs his reputation endured. Has there since been any retraction or apology, any acknowledgement of his exemplary service?
Shame on you New Iskander.
No retractions, no apologies. You will never see any either, because that would imply he was right. Deny deny deny. Spin Spin Spin. Stay steadfast. Resolve. Don’t let facts get in the way. Where are my strawberries.
!!
If it had only been presented that way. If it only had been “sold” to our present and former allies that way. If there had been a teeny bit of honesty. Saddam was a murdering nutcase and so were his sons, Itchy and Scratchy. He needed to go. That much I agree with. We did it wrong. It should have been done the way the first Gulf War was done, a real coalition, with UN blessing and troops. In fact, if the first coalition under the first Bush had finished the job, we wouldn’t have the quagmire we have now. The administration should have known better than to sell the war as "we will win in a few days and will do it “within budget”. Hindsight is 20/20. Now we are “mismanaging” the mess we made.
In any case, it wasn’t Saddam who attacked New York or Washington. It was bin Laden and Company. We had him cornered. We let him get away. Now he is being ignored, because he is “inconvenient”.
This may be the first accurate statement New Iskander has posted since joining the boards: there really was no connection between the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon and Bush’s distraction that wasted the resources and good will needed for the war on terror in beating up an isolated dictator who presented no threat to the U.S. The two things had nothing in common, indeed.
That’s because you can’t see through him. Everyone remembers Powell speech and it’s lack of substance. Powell made me laugh. But nobody remembers that Powell was followed by Blix. After listening to Blix I thought, “Perhaps there is something to it…” It was part of the same game: direct attacks and inconclusive retractions. You just can’t accept that you were being played.
The only person who told the truth was Scott Ritter, who resigned from inspections team in 1998, claiming inspections a sham and accusing Clinton adm. of playing political games under inspections cover.
What does that mean, you can’t count below six?
What does that mean? You can’t understand fairly simple sentences?
Not that I disagree with the sentiment as written, but if I may, I have a question for you:
What are the odds that the Iraq invasion could have been ‘sold’ to the American public solely on the basis of the thruth as expressed in your very post? How about somewhere between minuscule and none.
And as a follow-up to that query, do you think the Administration wasn’t keenly aware of those odds?
Perhaps the following Wolfowitz quote will help you see the cynical, albeit pragmatic rationale used in pursuit of their ideology. For as I’ve said many times in the past, that’s what this was all about – ideology:
**
Translate into English and voila! There’s you ‘justification’ – truth has nothing to do with it. Works for just about any country they’d propose to invade.
Cite for Dr Blix?
What a wounding question. Ouch it hurts. Not very much though, hmmm not at all. For your edification I present The Summary!: -
‘How Bush Lied’:
Explained at least 6 times, on this message board;
Not seriously rebutted.
How about
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12830532&method=full&siteid=50143
or
Um thanks ZombieBrain, I think.
I was actually asking for a cite that Dr Blix lied. I don’t believe there is any such evidence. That’s my beef with New Iskander’s slander.
Perhaps I’ve been whooshed.
Are you sure you mean this? Do you mean this Scott Ritter?
For the first time, I partially agree with you. Although I disagree that he was the only person to tell the truth.
I was listening to Powell’s UN speech in a car. Right after Powell finished, the station played Blix’s speech. Yes, Dr. Blix was always very meticulous in disproving specific US allegations about Iraqi WMD, but he was also very meticulous to always mention that Saddam is evasive and inspections must continue. Hans was certainly not a stand-up guy, as he never said outright that there is no WMD in Iraq, like Scott Ritter did. At best, old Hans is a career diplomat, milking his mandate for all it was worth. He was certainly speaking out of both sides of his mouth all the time: just count the references to Blix words in Powell speech.
Scott Ritter I respect for telling the truth both to Clinton and Bush. I disagree with his assessment of Iraq invasion, but maybe it’s my problem, not his. If there was anybody else as straightforward as SR, I never heard.
I was just trying to post links to what Blix actually said, so that you could see them. Sorry if I misunderstood what was wanted - it’s nearly 2am and I’m falling asleep here.